UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc., Ciena Corporation, Coriant Operations, Inc.,
`Coriant (USA) Inc., and Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Patent No. RE42,678
`Filing Date: June 15, 2010
`Reissue Date: September 6, 2011
`
`Title: RECONFIGURABLE OPTICAL ADD-DROP MULTIPLEXERS WITH
`SERVO CONTROL AND DYNAMIC SPECTRAL POWER MANAGEMENT
`CAPABILITIES
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review No. 2014-012761
`
`MOTION FOR SARAH J. GUSKE TO APPEAR
` PRO HAC VICE ON BEHALF OF
` PETITIONER CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
`
`
`1 Case IRP2015-00894 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board recognize Ms. Guske as
`
`counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is being filed in compliance
`
`with and pursuant to the “Order – Authorization Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`
`Admission” in Case No. IPR2013-00639 [“the Order”].
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`As required by the Order, the following statement of facts shows that there is
`
`good cause for the Board to recognize Ms. Guske pro hac vice.
`
`Ms. Guske is an experienced litigation attorney and has been involved in
`
`numerous complex litigations in state and federal courts. Ms. Guske’s biography
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Ms. Guske has reviewed U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 and the petition,
`
`preliminary response, institution decision, and petitioners response already filed in
`
`this proceeding. Further, Ms. Guske is counsel of record in the co-pending
`
`litigation between the parties, Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No.
`
`C-14-3348 EMC (N.D. California), and as such, is familiar with the subject matter
`
`at issue in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`Capella was consulted through its counsel during a telephone conference on
`
`September 16, 2015. Capella stated during that call that they would not oppose
`
`this motion.
`
`Therefore, Petitioner respectfully submits that there is good cause for the
`
`Board to recognize Ms. Guske as counsel pro hac vice during this proceeding.
`
`III. AFFIDAVIT OR DECLARATION OF INDIVIDUAL SEEKING TO
`APPEAR
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission is accompanied by an
`
`Affidavit of Ms. Sarah Guske as required by the Order.
`
`Dated: October 2, 2015
`
`COOLEY LLP
`ATTN: Wayne O. Stacy
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: (720) 566-4000
`Fax: (202) 842-7899
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`COOLEY LLP
`
`/ Wayne Stacy /
`Wayne O. Stacy
`Reg. No. 45,125
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`SARAH GUSKE
`PARTNER
`
`Ul I l(lt.
`
`»i</\\1lI(.l.t>
`
`Colorado
`380 Interlocken Crescent
`Suite 900
`Broomfield, Colorado
`80021
`
`E: sguske@coo|ey.com
`
`T: +1 720 566 4232
`F: +1 720 566 4099
`
`Intellectual Property
`Intellectual Property Litigation
`
`Sarah Guske is a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation practice group and a member of the Cooley
`
`Litigation department. She joined the Firm in 2004 and is resident in the Colorado office.
`
`Ms. Guske‘s practice focuses on patent litigation, with particular emphasis on software and electronics
`
`patent litigation cases. She has recently litigated patents involving selective encryption of MPEG
`
`multimedia data for broadcast IPTV; encryption and flow control for streaming data; database systems;
`
`telephonic interactive voice recognition systems; graphics chipset design and operation; gaming
`
`technologies; television color wheels; and digital television technologies. Ms. Guske also has litigation
`experience involving trademarks, trade dress, and unfair competition.
`
`In 2012, Ms. Guske was named an "associate to watch" in Colorado by Chambers USA, the only
`
`intellectual property associate in the Colorado region to receive this recognition. One client described "her
`
`ability to move between speaking in court and case management" as being "very impressive."
`
`Ms. Guske is admitted to practice in California and Colorado and is a member of the State Bar of California
`and the Colorado Bar Association.
`
`Ms. Guske received a JD from the University of California, Davis School of Law. Ms. Guske graduated,
`
`summa cum laude, from Washington State University with a BS in Electrical Engineering and also
`
`graduated, summa cum laude, from Whitworth College with a BA in Physics.
`
`Representative Litigation Cases:
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`Interactive Systems Worldwide, Inc. v. Mikohn Gaming Corp. et al. (District of Nevada) —
`
`litigation counsel to Mikohn Gaming Corp. and STB Holdings, Inc. in patent litigation related to
`
`real—time sports betting technologies.
`
`Zenith Electronics v. Thomson, Philips Electronics, TTE Technology, Pioneer Electronics
`
`(Eastern District of Texas) — litigation counsel to Zenith in patent litigation over patents essential
`
`for compliance with ATSC Digital Television Standard.
`
`Bookham, Inc. v. Unaxis Balzers AG et al. (Northern District of California) — litigation counsel
`
`to Bookham in patent litigation related to color wheel technology.
`
`HyperRo|l Israel, Ltd. v. Hyperion Solutions (Eastern District of Texas) —- litigation counsel to
`
`HyperRo|| Israel, Ltd. in a patent litigation against Hyperion Solutions. The technology in this case
`
`

`
`tl.P
`
`involves database—management software.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`HyperRoll, Inc. v. Hyperion Solutions (Northern District of California) —— litigation counsel to
`
`HyperRol|, Inc.
`
`in a declaratory judgment action brought by Hyperion Solutions. The technology in
`
`this case involves database—management software.
`
`Qualcomm Incorporated v. Nokia Corporation (Eastern District of Texas) — litigation counsel
`
`for Qualcomm in a patent infringement action involving cellular telephony systems and mobile TV
`
`applications.
`
`International Printer Corp. v. Brother International et al. (Eastern District of Texas) —
`
`litigation counsel for International Printer in a patent infringement action against twelve
`
`manufacturers of networkable multi-function printer and imaging technology.
`
`Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Chevron et al. (Eastern District of Texas) —
`
`litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology
`
`involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
`
`Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Consolidated Edison et al. (Eastern District
`
`of Texas) - litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants.
`
`The technology involves computer telephony and call—center systems.
`
`Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Comcast et al. (Eastern District of Texas) —
`
`litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The technology
`
`involves computer telephony and call-center systems.
`
`Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. v. Fifth Third Bancorp et al. (Eastern District of
`
`Texas) — litigation counsel for Katz in a patent infringement action against nine defendants. The
`
`technology involves computer telephony and call—center systems.
`
`- Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Eastern District of Texas) —- litigation counsel
`
`for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption technology.
`
`- Widevine Technologies, Inc. v. Verimatrix, Inc. (Western District of Washington) — litigation
`
`counsel for Verimatrix in a patent infringement action involving encryption and data stream flow
`
`control technology.
`
`-
`
`-
`
`OPTi Inc. v. nVidia Corp. (Eastern District of Texas) — litigation counsel for nvidia in a patent
`
`infringement action involving chipset design and operation.
`
`OMS Investments, Inc., et al. v. TerraCycle, lnc. (District of New Jersey) — litigation counsel
`
`for TerraCyc|e in trade dress infringement and unfair competition action.
`
`Education
`
`-
`
`University of California, Davis School of Law
`JD, 2004
`
`- Washington State University
`
`BS Electrical Engineering, 2001, summa cum laude
`
`- Whitworth College
`
`

`
`BA Physics, 2001, summa cum laude
`
`Bar Admissions
`
`California
`
`Colorado
`
`Court Admissions
`
`All California State Courts
`
`All Colorado State Courts
`
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
`
`U.S. District Court, Central District of California
`
`U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
`
`U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
`
`U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`AFFIDAVIT OF MS. SARAH GUSKE IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION
`
`
`I, Sarah J. Guske, do hereby declare:
`
`
`
`1. I am a partner in the law firm Cooley LLP. Lead counsel in this inter
`
`partes review proceeding is Wayne O. Stacy, who is a partner in the law firm
`
`Cooley LLP. Mr. Stacy is registered to practice before the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office and holds Registration No. 45,125. With respect to this
`
`proceeding, I will work closely with Mr. Stacy.
`
`
`
`2. I hold a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Washington
`
`State University and a bachelor’s degree in physics from Whitworth University. I
`
`hold a juris doctor degree from the University of California—Davis School of Law.
`
`
`
`3. I have over 10 years of experience as a litigating attorney representing
`
`clients in matters in various United States District Courts and Courts of Appeals,
`
`and before the International Trade Commission. My experience includes several
`
`litigation matters in the optical and electrical circuits field. I am, therefore, an
`
`experienced litigating attorney. Petitioner desires, and has a need, to be
`
`represented in certain aspects of these proceedings by an experienced litigating
`
`attorney.
`
`
`
`4. I am familiar with U.S. Patent No. RE42,678 and with the legal subject
`
`matter, technical subject matter, and prior art discussed in Patent Owner’s Request
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. RE42,678, which forms the basis for
`
`this proceeding.
`
`
`
`5. I am a member in good standing of the Supreme Court for the State of
`
`Colorado and the Supreme Court for the State of California. I am also admitted to
`
`practice before the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, United
`
`States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States
`
`District Court for Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit.
`
`
`
`6. I have never been suspended or disbarred from practice before any court
`
`or administrative body.
`
`
`
`7. I have never had a court or administrative body deny my application for
`
`admission to practice.
`
`
`
`8. I have never been sanctioned or cited for contempt by any court or
`
`administrative body.
`
`
`
`9. I have read and will comply with the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`
`and the Board's Rules of Practice for Trials set forth in part 42 of the C.F.R.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`
`10. I agree to be subject to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Code of Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. and
`
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a).
`
`
`
`11. In the past 10 years, I have not appeared pro hac vice in any proceedings
`
`before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`
`
`12. I declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true
`
`and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and
`
`further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful, false
`
`statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both,
`
`under Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false
`
`statements may jeopardize the validity of U.S. Patent No. RE42,678.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 2, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Sarah J. Guske /
` Sarah J. Guske
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case No. 2014-01276
`Atty. Docket No. CSCO-002/00US [034855.2015] (RE42,678)
`Cisco’s Motion for Sarah J. Guske to Appear Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) the foregoing Motion for Sarah J. Guske
`
`to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc.; Under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.10(c) and Affidavit of Ms. Sarah Guske in Support of Motion for Pro
`
`Hac Vice Admission together with all exhibits and other papers filed herewith was
`
`served electronically via email on the following counsel of record for Patent
`
`Owners:
`
`Jason D. Eisenberg (Lead Counsel)
`Robert Greene Sterne (Backup Counsel)
`Jon E. Wright (Backup Counsel)
`Nicholas J. Nowak (Backup Counsel)
`Jonathan Tuminaro (Backup Counsel)
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`1100 New York Avenue, N. W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`E-mails:
`jasone-PTAB@skgf.com
`rsterne-PTAB@skgf.com
`jwright-PTAB@skgf.com
`nnowak-PTAB@skgf.com
`jtuminar-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy /
`
`Wayne O. Stacy
`
`Reg. No. 45,125
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 2, 2015
`
`
`121814842 v1